Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    What can I say but "I agree". What seems to offend people the most is
    when subjects of "private morality" are questioned publicly. Gays
    walking down the street in a partial embrace is likely to draw stares
    if not outright censure - a male-female couple is likely to draw only a
    few smiles. Someone obviously abusing drugs publicly is also likely to
    draw censure - try lighting up in your cubical or coming to work drunk
    if you want to test that statement. Visiting a family planning clinic,
    even if for advice on how to concieve, is likely to draw some serious
    public censure. 
    Militarism and consumerism are not seen by most people as "moral
    concerns" and in fact are glorified by large segments of the
    population. One leads to indiscriminant gravestones, the other to
    hunger and poverty, yet there are thousands of solid citizens willing
    to stand up and be counted for each. Very strange.

Richard,

It seems to me that public servants are judged on their ethical
values based on their moral values. President Bush, for instance,
if he were a lifelong Quaker would be contrary to his beliefs if
he were to start the war with Iraq.

If Congressman Lukens were to legislate laws against carnal
knowledge with minors, I am sure that there will be a few folks
taking a hard look at his ethics in light of his guilty verdict
with a teenage prostitute.

calvin

    There is also the problem of wealth and the problem of keeping
    that wealth secure, aka, "national security."  These lead to all
    kinds of sins (of both commission and omission) against other peoples
    and ourselves.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Regarding this whole subject of morality .... What about contemporary
    morality versus Biblical morality, and the hypocracy that lies therein?
     
    Essentially, I have a major bone to pick with mainstream American
    Christinanity on morality.  Take a look at some of the replies in the
    next topic about divorce, topic 112.  Divorce, though Jesus in the New
    Testament clearly considers it a sin -- in Matthew, in Mark, and
    elsewhere --  contemporary American bornagain Christians seem to 
    consider divorce "OK" or "no big deal."  Same goes for the Biblical
    sin of premarital sex.   Most horny red-blooded American born-again
    contemporary Christians don't think twice about having premarital sex,
    especially men.  And when have you ever heard Christians chastise each
    other about the innate evils of premarital sex or divorce, in the same
    manner, for example, they chastise gay Christians?   There is more support 
    in the scriptures for divorce and premarital sex being sinful, much more 
    so than homosexuality -- yet American Christianity, which touts Biblical
    inerrancy and literalism, has created its own foam-at-the-mouth boogie-man 
    moral bugaboos that are illogical, according to its very own standards. 
    Homosexuality is equated with murder -- see topic 91 -- but divorce is
    considered OK.   The culture in which people live has EVERYTHING to do
    with what is considered good or bad or evil or divine.  Didn't Paul
    tell slaves to obey their masters?  Sanctioning slavery?  Yes, slavery
    once was considered OK in the eyes of God, right?  And Americans in this 
    day and age are no less attached to their own culturally-induced notions 
    of what is moral and what is immoral.
    
    Under certain circumstances, I see nothing immoral about divorce or
    premarital sex.  My parents should have divorced 15 years before they
    actually did, to preserve their own sanity as well as their children's.
    But I am not one who believes in the infallibility of the Bible.
    However, those bornagain American Christians, who wave their Bibles
    high in the air, and proclaim we must live our lives in ways this book
    says, but who then turn right around and prop up their own personal
    lifestyle -- and condemn that of others -- by stretching the limits of
    their own high-sounding scriptural standards and criteria, are no better 
    than the Pharisees.  Twentieth century Pharisees right here in America, 
    folks.
    
    The moderators will probably throw out this reply, but I don't care.
    Paul   
                                                            

>Divorce, though Jesus in the New
>    Testament clearly considers it a sin -- in Matthew, in Mark, and
>    elsewhere --  contemporary American bornagain Christians seem to 
    
    Perhaps this belongs in the divorce topic, but please quote some
    verses to support this. It's not clear to me and I could use some
    help. Thanks.
    
    			Alfred

    re:  .5
    
    Matt 5:31,32, Matt 19, Mark 10:1-12, Luke 16:18, 1 Corinthians 7
    
    Paul
    

re Note 111.4 by JOKUR::CIOTO:

>     Most horny red-blooded American born-again
>     contemporary Christians don't think twice about having premarital sex,
>     especially men.  

        I don't think this is true of ANY of the born-again
        Christians I know -- where did you get this "fact"?

        Bob

    re  .7
    
    By what I see and by what I hear and by living life.
    
    How many Christians do you know who fall in love, then live with and/or
    have sexual relations with their partners before marriage?  I have
    known a lot.
    
    Paul
    

    I'll ditto Paul on that. I will admit that this is mostly true, in my
    experience, of teenagers and middle-agers than of "tweenagers", but I
    have seen it more than once. A similar coralary is when my born-again
    brother fails to curtail his daughters when they pirate software, going
    so far as to provide cracker software which helps them. He would never
    think of having extra-marital sex, but I'm starting to wonder about his
    oldest daughter - the one who spent a couple of hours one night trying
    to help my eldest son "find Jesus". Little snip!
    
    Calvin,
    	perhaps we are talking about different episodes, I believe that the
    girl Lukens was found guilty of having sex with was NOT a prostitute.
    He did give her money but my understanding is that he was the only one
    who did so. It was her outraged mother who filed the complaint. And
    before you say "she took money for sex, that makes her a prostitute",
    think very hard. If you are married and your wife does not work, what
    does she get for her sexual favors? If a rapist throws a few dollars at
    his victim, is she taking money? Be very careful about how you justify
    calling the girl a prostitute. Or just say "oooops". I'll understand,
    having had lots of experience at it. 8*}

Re:  111.4  JOKUR::CIOTO

  >Essentially, I have a major bone to pick with mainstream American
  >Christinanity on morality.  

Who is the mainstream?  Moderates?  Liberals?  Conservatives?  It
certainly is not inerrantists.

  >Divorce, though Jesus in the New Testament clearly considers it a sin -- 
  >in Matthew, in Mark, and elsewhere --  contemporary American bornagain 
  >Christians seem to consider divorce "OK" or "no big deal."  

Divorce is an important issue in each of the last 3 churches I've
attended.  It is not as much of an issue in the more liberal Protestant
churches.

  >...yet American Christianity, which touts Biblical inerrancy and 
  >literalism...

I'm not so sure about literalism, but I wish American Christianity did tout
inerrancy.  Unfortunately, it doesn't.

  >Homosexuality is equated with murder... 

A more accurate representation would be that those who live a homosexual
lifestyle will suffer the same eternal consequences as those who live
a lifestyle which murders.  Or to say that neither practicing homosexuals
or murderers will enter the kingdom of God.

  >...but divorce is considered OK. 

Whose church are you talking about?  Not mine.

But there's more to the story, as well.  Divorce is sometimes acceptable.
Sometimes, people who divorce for selfish reasons (rather than godly
reasons) repent.  I have not been in a church which would not be
supportive of a repentive homosexual.  (I'm aware they do exist, but
this does not make it the norm.)

  >My parents should have divorced 15 years before they actually did, 
  >to preserve their own sanity as well as their children's.

Shouldn't they have submitted their own wills to God instead?  Yes,
I know, this is exactly what people (including myself) are unwilling
to do.  But that doesn't make divorce right.  It only exposes our own
sins and unrepentant hearts.  This comment is not directly about your
parents, but about any couple who experiences problems.

I'm sorry you're so frustrated, Paul.  Obviously, I see things quite
differently then you do.  I don't know what I can do to help.

Collis

Paul,

I am sorry that your contract is up. I enjoyed your replies and
notes.

I am wondering if you are lumping glitzy "christianness" along
with what every main-line Christian is trying to do; live a life
of harmony. You're right that Americanism; a religious
phenomenal where patriotism, moral, ethical value are based on
quasi-religious values based on literal, one line interpetations
of the Bible.

Is, for instance, marriedness in line with legal marriedness?
British common law says that marriedness starts when one share
the same abode with the intention of intamacy (ok, I'll say it,
SEX).

Dave,

I stand corrected that the woman in the Lukens case may have been
consenting (though a minor).

calvin

Twice on the 700 Club today this phrase was uttered commenting on the
events of 1991 pertaining to the United States:

	"United in war, but divided over moral issues."

This statement undergrids and reinforces the belief that war is not a
moral issue, but only matters connected to personal morality are!

It causes me to heave a great sigh.

Peace,
Richard

    re: .12 --
    Interesting -- I was sure you were going to point out that we were
    *not* "united" in war!
    
    :-)

    Re: .12
    
    Though what you've said is true, I realize the 700 Club was making a
    generalization.  It's the underlying assumption that made the statement
    obtuse to me.
    
    Peace,
    Richard